The 2006 study doc for the Bond Bridge said 2030 traffic would be:100,000 for the No-Build Concept, 125,000 for the Six-lane Build Concept, 140,000 for the Eight-lane Build Concept and 135,000 for the Eight-lane HOV Concept

So it's entirely possible the bridge would hit the theoretical maximum it could hold. MO 9 can't handle too many more cars, the stop lights provide the maximum capacity. Some would split to 635 of course. But I bet there would be 25k more cars taking I-35 with a closing

We could find out what this maximum looks like real world and start planning way quicker. It would help give reasons to add commuter rail decades quicker.

I don't know if anyone knows this, but htf did we let this happen? We've gone from what seems to be no talk about this to complete panic/shut the bridge down for two years/fast track the north loop plan.

WoodDraw wrote:I don't know if anyone knows this, but htf did we let this happen? We've gone from what seems to be no talk about this to complete panic/shut the bridge down for two years/fast track the north loop plan.

Someone fucked up? Who? This stuff drives me crazy.

The legislature nomadequately funding modot relative to the work needed plus over building most projects plus too many state roads period relative to our population combined with modot debt financing everything and not establishing maintenance funds.

You go me. What/where is LOTO? Is my belief a belief in an urban legend?I know the Broadway Bridge was a toll bridge, at one time I believe there was a toll on both ends. But the bridge was a local government build, no state money.

1) modot and kcmo are now in talks for a short-term (3-5yrs) fix that will allow design (NEPA, actually) for a replacement bridge to continue. the short-term fix and NEPA work would cost $7 million and be split 50/50 between modot and kcmo. GO bond revenue is likely candidate for local match.

2) discussions with BNSF about a combined road/rail bridge have concluded that a new combined bridge would need to be a movable structure since the grades approaching the current hannibal bridge could not change (this seems unlikely)

3) PEL team is looking to mimic the design of HOA bridge, which would allow more flexibility with locating the piers for a new bridge

4) a substantial structure (read: expensive) would be required to directly connect US-169 and I-35 traffic due to the elevation differences between the river crossing and west loop

5) PEL concepts will be released to the public in August and ULI is coming back in september to review progress

- downtowners (and, to a lesser degree, kcmo) want to eliminate the danger of an at-grade interchange for two federal highways (45% of current SB US-169 trips are not headed to north loop) and open the I-70 portion up for redevelopment.- northland interests want the direct 169/35 connection, presumably to fuel twin creeks growth (and, yes, that is disgusting).- the DOTs don't want to spend any money or decommission any assets.- bike/ped advocates just want the safe river crossing they were promised after the bond bridge debacle.- a few transit advocates (i'm not one of them) want a combined road/rail bridge that would preserve a future option for commuter rail.- kck apparently doesn't want to do anything.- all of the federal agencies (corps, FAA, FHWA) want you to follow their rules.

a 3-5 year short-term fix doesn't seem like the worst case scenario though, yeah? Assuming KC/downtown uses that time to put together a true master plan for the area. This never seemed like a timeline anyone felt comfortable with.